Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages, or anything else on this site..

I Was Asked, "Can You Write Me Some Information on Evolution......I Want to Give a Speech on 'Theistic Evolution' and I need to Show How Evolution and the Bible can fit Together!"

“…It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we know about it…about eighteen months ago…I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in London, during a presentation on 5 November 1981, at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History.)

I was at University at the time. Many years earlier I had rejected evolution as being a viable or even a truly scientific teaching, but had not looked into the matter now for at least 10 years. But by this stage I considered myself fully evangelical (rather than 'fundamentalist'), accepting that the earlier fundamentalists had not done themselves too many favours by getting involved in science when they should have concentrated on preaching the gospel, whilst avoiding all 'in-house' doctrinal tiffs with other believers. Now - at last - I thought it might be time to look at 'Theistic Evolution' again. I knew that some believers now were prepared to loosely accept 'Theistic Evolution' (God used evolution to create the world), so I welcomed this challenge from my friend to come up with some information to support not only evolution but Theistic Evolution at that. I had 7 days during which I neglected my normal university theology studies somewhat in order to really delve into this matter, but I offered my friend no guarantees as to my final conclusions. My friend made a generous comment to the effect that he felt that he knew me well enough to say that whatever my final conclusions were, he felt that that was where he too should stand on evolution.

For 5 or 6 days I went 'AWOL' (absent without leave) from my normal lectures and spent many hours in one of the best university libraries in Britain while I delved into the matter. I was able to tackle some of the arguments of Dawkins ('The Blind Watchmaker', 'The Selfish Gene' etc), who has become perhaps the premier atheistic populist propagandist for evolution. I was able to consider some of the work and conclusions of Stephen Jay Gould. Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was among the best known and most widely read scientists of the late 20th century. He was a paleontologist and educator based at Harvard University.

I was able to consider some of the conclusions of Carl Sagan with his intense interest in our cosmos. I considered the (so-called) 'Geologic Column', I considered what some of the finest evolution-influenced minds have said about the countless millions of fossils which are now available.

I considered Carbon Dating; Is it reliable and reasonably accurate?

Then I went back to Charles Darwin himself: How qualified was this man?

Following all this, I went back to Creationism and sought out the most articulate writers, especially those from a background in science.

Although I was indeed able to get back to my friend in 7 days, the whole process actually took much longer since some of the books I wanted to absorb were not immediately available. By the time I completely finished with all of this (around 4 months), I felt that it was time to put evolutionism to bed as far as I was concerned, and I now prefer to point people to some of the great resources out there, rather than personally get involved in arguments and debates on this issue.

o what were my conclusions after I went into all this in depth 6 years ago?

Well, I could not come up with any real hard information to support 'Theistic Evolution' to help my friend out, and I told him that my studies had only shown that evolution is about 98% propaganda, hype, unsupported exaggeration and sheer philosophy; moreover, it is amazingly unscientific! Here are just some of my conclusions:

1. Age Of The Earth Despite what some will tell you, the age of this earth really does continue to be an entirely open question. It is still perfectly reasonable and feasible to say that this earth might be no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old! All of the data which evolutionists come up with to "prove" that this world is billions of years old, is perfectly capable of being interpreted differently. Many Christians, it seems to me, have jumped to such things as 'The Gap Theory', 'The Day-Age Theory' and 'Theistic Evolution' (all of which are attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution), rather too easily. In saying this, I am taking all of the available data into account. Many say that the distance of the stars from the earth alone shows that this earth is countless millions of years old, but that is just not so. When God created this world, He obviously created it in an apparently mature state, already fully fashioned (Adam and Eve themselves were mature adults having never experienced childhood).

2. The Geologic Column which appears so brazenly in so many school textbooks, is a sheer invention. It does not exist anywhere in the world! When pressed, most evolutionists will admit this. Even worse, they tell us that they date fossils by where they appear in this column. As Creationist educators like Dr Kent Hovind have pointed out, they unashamedly employ 'circular reasoning' (which defies the laws of logic) by saying:

(a) Fossils are dated by their position in the Geologic Column. (b) The Geologic Column is dated by the fossils within!

This, of course, is completely nonsensical and, I am told, American guidelines for school and college science/geology teachers even contain hints on how to handle the brighter students who challenge it.

3. Formation OF Coal Etc. It used to be thought that the formation of coal, oil and petrification took millions of years, therefore "proving" that our earth is millions or billions of years old. Almost nobody now believes this since it has been shown that - under the right conditions (mainly water saturation and/or rapid burial - a worldwide flood!?) - these things can start to form and occur in just a matter of weeks, and quite comfortably in just a few short years! I am much indebted here to the work of such people as Robert Gentry. Some videos of Robert's research can be found Here.

Coal is generally believed to have formed about 300 million years ago, according to evolutionary dating. However, Erich von Fange Ph.D. has documented several interesting human artifacts found in coal. These include:

(Note: As of June 2013, In Search of the Genesis World: Debunking the Evolution Myth by Erich A. Von Fange was available on Amazon)

4. Carbon 14 dating has huge dating problems which the average member of the public, or the average school science teacher never even begins to appreciate or understand. It is not like just looking at a watch to see the time! The results always have to be 'interpreted' with a suggested date fed in! And yet the public, and school and college students, are sometimes presented with a picture that Carbon Dating is the very final word on dating! Indeed, I am reliably informed that the residues of the Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption (which occurred in the 1980's) can quite easily be carbon dated to being millions of years old!!

5. Fossils. Charles Darwin undoubtedly hoped that within a few years of his death fossil discoveries would provide solid evidence of evolution. Of course, this has never happened. Most evolutionists are entirely open about this and will freely admit that there are no 'missing links' although there have been several famous missing link hoaxes! (indeed, alarmingly, some things now proven to be hoaxes continue to surface and to be presented as fact in school biology textbooks and even on BBC natural history programmes). One evolutionist, Niles Eldridge, in a moment of utter candour, wrote, "Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Quoted by Philip Johnson, p60-61, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Inter-Varsity Press, 1997).

As is now quite well known, the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new life forms with never any evidence of the sort of transitions which evolution would require. Again, most evolutionists do admit this, albeit usually somewhat reluctantly. Creation scientists see a worldwide flood as having provided the ideal conditions for what we see in geology and the fossil record. I must admit that at one time I was not entirely convinced on this point but it really does seem to be the case that only a worldwide flood and the affects which followed it can explain some of the things we find (fossils on Mount Everest!? Petrified trees still in a standing position going straight through several layers of rock strata which supposedly took "millions of years" to form!?).

Of course, one objection to all this might be:

If all these things were buried suddenly in a great flood, and we find all these fossils as a result, where are the human fossils? Human fossils, of course, have been found but perhaps not as many as might be expected. Why?

(a) The population of the world was far, far lower at the time of the flood than today.

(b) People, being more intelligent than animals would not (in most cases) have been so quickly buried, but would have made greater efforts to continually find higher ground. This also means that - being exposed to the elements - their bodies would have been more likely to decompose, rather than be buried under many layers of sediment.

6. Micro-evolution (natural selection, variations within 'kinds') is true and we see it all around us. But no evidence that one 'kind' can change into another 'kind' has ever been found. There are dozens of different dogs, but they are all dogs! However domesticated the modern dog has become in the western world, I am quite sure that no dog is ever going to start developing human arms and a resultant ability to be able to put on the kettle to make a pot of tea!! Of course, some say (distinctly foolishly) that the similarity between a human elbow and an animal elbow "proves" that we are related; it proves nothing of the sort, but it could well point to animals and humans having the same designer. Of course, if evolution is true we are also related to oranges, bananas and cactus plants!! No, its a matter of changes only within kinds: same with snakes, spiders and everything else: they remain true to their kind. Evolutionists love to talk about these variations within kinds as "proof" of evolution when it is nothing of the sort and they know it - this lays evolutionists open to the charge of intellectual deception! This sort of dishonesty happens rather a lot at school biology/science level.

7. Macro-Evolution is actually not only illogical but does not conform to the laws of science which can be tested and verified. These include the Law of Biogenesis (life can only come from life). Leading evolutionists are forced to accept the principle of 'spontaneous generation', although as scientists they have never witnessed it! . A former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology acknowledged the dilemma.

'The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position'. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46. Wald then accepts the impossible odds of spontaneous generation rather than creation. 'One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation'. Ibid.

Then there is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that everything material tends to break down and deteriorate - rather than 'evolve' to a higher form. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. This flys in the face of evolutionary theory. I once read a very long and very tedious "explanation" of how this law actually 'supports evolution' but the explanation only showed that the writer was quite prepared to live in a 'never never land' of suggestion, suspended reality, speculation and pipe dreams, something of the order of, 'We know that 2+2=4, but maybe occasionally 2+2=13 in some way we don't understand' This "intellectual" article seemed to be saying, 'I am quite prepared to say that 2+2=13 if it will mean that evolution is true'.

Is it any wonder that even 150 years after Darwin's 'Origin of Species' a majority of the public do not accept evolution?

8. Irreducible Complexityheavily legislates against evolution. The world of molecular biology has moved on since Darwin's day. To Darwin the human cell was little more than a tiny blob of gunk, today we know that the human cell is a miniature factory of the most amazing complexity. Undoubtedly, this would have astonished Darwin, indeed he might have revised his teachings if he knew what we now understand. We must remind ourselves that Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), p. 154)

Commenting on the above quote, prominent neo-Darwinist and atheist Richard Dawkins said, " I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is - it'll have to be a really complex organ, and, as we'll see in later chapters, you have to be sophisticated about what you mean by 'slight' - I shall cease to believe in Darwinism." (Blind Watchmaker, 2nd ed, 1996, pg 91)

It is not surprising then that Michael Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity has sent evolutionists running for cover in order to find yet another explanation which sounds convincing.

Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we see in mechanised machinery; In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. Such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner - it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Therefore this is a mountainous challenge to Darwinism. Others too have now joined Behe in this exciting new area of study and research and the future looks increasingly bleak for the devout evolutionist!

It irks me that here in the UK schools and colleges continue to teach evolution as though we were still in the 1950's, apparently completely ignorant of the huge new challenges to evolution which have emerged during the last 10-15 years!

9. Darwin himself was not a scientist as so many erroneously believe; he was a one-time preacher of the gospel who went astray. He went on HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands because there was no other job on offer. Being interested in nature studies, and with his meals provided, he decided to go.

When Charles Darwin embarked on the Beagle, he took with him a book written by Charles Lyell: 'Principles of Geology'. In the book, Lyell made the argument for gradualism (or uniformitarianism), the idea that present-day geological processes can explain the history of the earth. When Lyell introduced this concept in 1830, it was a controversial idea; many people relied on the story of the biblical flood to explain the earth's features. Lyell had a strong influence on Darwin, gradually turning him into into an unbeliever. Lyell, who was a contemporary of Darwin, initially rejected his admirer's 'Origin of Species' but eventually wholeheartedly embraced it. The two came to see themselves as new missionaries of a new naturalistic and God-rejecting age.

But we have to remember that Darwin heavily plagiarized his theory from other writers, especially Alfred Wallace, and many believe that he seized upon a chance to acquire fame and security at least partially from the work of others.

Despite these facts about Darwin (which are easily researched), BBC Television, here in the UK, continue to perpetrate the myth that Darwin was a great scientist and benefactor which the world was just waiting for; they refuse to be clouded by the facts. Here is proof that - for some - Darwinism is a faith-based religion! Almost every BBC natural history programme worships at the altar of Darwin, and not inconspicuously at that; the producers of such programmes appear to be blithely unaware of the advances in biology during the last 15 years and how these advances are bringing many aspects of evolutionary faith into serious question.

CONCLUSIONMichael Denton has written,

'The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is really no hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of any age...'(Denton, 'Evolution: a Theory in Crisis', p358).

Denton's words are very true! Evolution is assumed everywhere, from the most harmless looking television nature programme, to the 'off the cuff' comments of many of us. Countless millions of school science and biology textbooks are steeped in what is effectively a lie.

I could have taken this essay much further but wanted to keep it within manageable borders. Certainly I could have said much about the so-called 'vestigial organs' which are supposed to be support for evolution, I could have got into DNA and the subject of so-called 'useless DNA' which evolutionists are talking about. Truthfully the understanding of DNA was a huge blow for evolutionists, but like the perennial hoodlum trapped in a corner, a few are desperately attempting to twist and wriggle to gain some advantage, but it will ultimately be to no avail.

The great anti-God names of the 19th and 20th centuries have now almost all fallen: Nietzsche, Marx, Hitler, Freud, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and others and we believe that Darwin must surely be next (by the way, evolution provided an atheistic foundation and worldview for many of the former to thrive). Evolution is now just a hollow shell of a theory, but those who reject the authority of God will continue to cling to it until the bitter end since when it has eventually finally crumbled into oblivion, all that will be left will be the acknowledgment and worship of Almighty God; a bitter pill, indeed for Mankind.

'The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.' (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ,1985, p. 306) By the way, Michael Denton is an Australian molecular biologist.